Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Since the introduction of the Nordic model in Sweden and Norway, there have been reports, including by government agencies in those countries, of greater harassment on the streets, increased competition for clients and more pressure on sex workers to accept riskier clients who are aggressive or drunk and engage in dangerous behaviour, such as unprotected sex. According to UNAIDS, criminalising clients deters those who do not want to commit a crime but not those who actually intend to abuse sex workers, thereby increasing the proportion of clients who are aggressive or dangerous. Prosecuting sex workers who work together indoors for safety on grounds of brothel keeping is another way to ensure they will be unsafe. The lack of focus on harm reduction in the Nordic model has led to increased surveillance and searches by the police in Sweden, who are reportedly confiscating condoms for evidence, thus increasing the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. The World Health Organization and HIV Ireland are just two of the many health-based organisations advocating the decriminalisation of sex work as the model for preventing further transmission of HIV.

The Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security report entitled Evaluation of Norwegian Legislation Criminalising the Buying of Sexual Services, dated 2014, found the Swedish law criminalising the purchase of sex had created a buyer's market and that violence against sex workers had actually increased.

In a context of high unemployment, depressed wages and increased homelessness and debt, where asylum seekers are forbidden from entering the workforce, it is actually irresponsible to consider any model of sex industry regulation that would make it more difficult for marginalised people to survive. Despite the overwhelming evidence highlighting the negative consequences of the Nordic model, the Irish Government has taken an unjustifiably positive view of the legislation. Mr. Michael Lynn, SC, stresses in his legal opinion the fact that there is no concrete evidence that the Nordic model has actually reduced the level of prostitution, which was its aim in the first place. According to the legal opinion, the importance of the evidential deficit cannot be overstated. It is claimed the legislation may have serious negative consequences for the rights, including the physical safety, of the group of people it is designed to protect. Nobody knows what the effect of the legislation will be in Ireland. It is stated gambling with the lives and welfare of sex workers is highly dangerous and obviously unjustifiable. According to research carried out by Chu and Glass in 2013-14, any claim that there has been a reduction in street prostitution in Sweden must be qualified by the fact that much of it has been displaced to indoor markets.

A key issue is that the Government willingly conflates the issues of sex work and trafficking. A report by the UN special rapporteur on the right to health in 2010 stated the conflation of consensual sex work and sex trafficking in such legislation leads, at best, to the implementation of inappropriate responses that fail to assist either of the relevant groups in realising their rights and, at worst, to violence and oppression. Clearly, where people are coerced into selling sex or are unable to leave sex work if they wish to, we need to have specific laws to protect them, but consensual adult sex is a very different issue.

The Bill portrays sex workers as vulnerable and without any agency or autonomy of their own.

No importance is attached to the consent of the sex worker. No sex act should ever happen without consent, but the Bill disregards the ability of a sex worker to give consent. This raises an interesting question. Why does the Government believe consent does not count when it comes to a sex worker? Treating all sex work as abuse or sexual assault is to tell the workers involved that their consent is irrelevant. If people can be believed when they assert that they do not consent to sex, surely they can also be believed when they say they do. By dismissing the rationale that adults have consented to sex, one is implying that one knows their minds better than they do.

Proponents of the Nordic model, consciously or otherwise, are seeking to undermine the right of sex workers to self-determination in the context of sex work. An upshot of this infantilising attitude towards them is that in not respecting their right to consent to engage in sex work, it makes it more difficult for sex workers who are the victims of rape or sexual assault to be taken seriously. Furthermore, the attitude that sex work is inherently degrading is not only insulting to sex workers, it also perpetuates the stigma around it. The Government believes it is helping sex workers through this Bill, but in diminishing their agency, it will make them more vulnerable. The legislation's moralistic nature must not be ignored. We could be discussing abortion laws, the symphysiotomy scandal or what happened in the Magdalen laundries, all of which continue to have serious implications for bodily autonomy rights.

Criminalising sex workers' clients is de factoa criminalisation of the sex workers and creates additional risks for an already marginalised group. Regardless of who is criminalised, it focuses law enforcement efforts and public money on fighting the sex trade, essentially treating everyone involved as a criminal and creating an adversarial atmosphere. Police officers are increasingly seen as enforcers rather than protectors. Any legislative change purporting to make sex workers' lives safer should focus on improving their relationship with the police in order that they will feel free to seek help when they need it while addressing the issue of exploitation. According to a 2004 report from the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police, entitled "Purchasing Sexual Services in Sweden and the Netherlands: Legal Regulation and Experiences", the negative relations between sex workers and the police made them less likely to reach out when they witnessed trafficking, abuse or exploitation. Sex workers were less safe and abusers could act with impunity.

I do not see the rationale behind the Bill and disagree strongly with this approach. Sex workers have not been listened to and life will be more difficult for them after this legislation is passed.

See this speech in context